2 questions

Has a rookie quarterback ever started and won a Superbowl?

Would Brett Favre be the only guy to ever win 2 superbowl's with 2 different teams as a starting Quarterback?

Tom Brady was basically a rookie when he won the Superbowl. Well it was his 2nd year, but he didn't play his first year. Remember he came off the bench when Bledsoe got injured...

NO and YES. Several QB's have started for different teams but no one has one 2 Super Bowls as a starting QB for different teams.

Until now.

I'd love to see a Minnesota/Indy Super Bowl. We'd get to hear once again how superior Manning is to everything human, but we'd also hear the usual bone thrown to Brett for being "a real gamer!".

Then, we'd watch Minnesota's pass rush completely stymie Manning, Favre work his usual magic and history being made. At which point, it would become a fact [finally] that Brett Favre is the greatest NFL QB that's ever played.

OMG! You had that nightmare too!??

Pride's a helluva thing, ain't it???

The 7th Deadly Sin!!!

I wouldn't call a guy with two superbowl rings in 18 seasons the best QB in the nfl ever. Montana won 4 sb's in 4 less years than favre.

You're not thinking clearly or reasonably. Again, why you people try to simplify a complex sport like the NFL is not only disappointing, but it is mind-boggling.

Super Bowls are about "team" and "coaching" and "talent" - they are NOT about ONE PLAYER. I mean, as a Packers fan, certainly you of all people can appreciate this, right? I mean, Aaron Rodgers is the perfect example - he cannot play defense or block for himself.

Montana was good, but he was more of a product of a real sound system, and in a free-agent-free era - just like Bradshaw. He was also nowhere near as exciting as Favre, and nowhere near as durable. Favre almost put up more TD's and yards THIS season as Joe Montana did in his last TWO seasons combined.

Favre has now won playoff games in THREE decades - that's pretty remarkable.

Favre, Favre, Favre, by your logic I have to inquire which team this guy plays for? The Vikings. Basically it was all Favre who is controlling the Vikings destiny for a superbowl correct? I'm sure Montana wouldn't mind having a superstar running back in AP (Even though his production has fallen this season he is still one of the best in the NFL), and 4 stellar D-lineman that pretty much controls the defense where their linebackers and secondary barely have to play coverage. And you're talking about the team right? Puh-lease.

Lmao, discrediting Montana because of the system which is giving more credit to the coaching. What Hausch, you think Favre called all the plays throughout his career? Of course you need good coaching to get to a SB.

I thought it was a "Team" game. Isn't that what you were just saying?

Bingo.
Exactly.
Word.

Burp Fart will have to win more SBs than Montana to be considered the best. And that just ain't gonna happen.

Thank you. :handshake:

Sour grapes.

No but they are about one player on offense who can lead his team time after time down the field to win games during the last moments.
And it's even more impressive when done in the SB.
How many times did Brent do that?

WTF drugs are you on? Did you not ever pay attention when Montana was playing?
1) He is remembered for the famous throw of "The Catch" to Dwight Clark. How many famous throws/catches stand out for Fart in the media on a similar scale?
2) Montana suffered a very serious back injury that almost ended his playing carrer.
True that took him out from starting for awhile. But he did not (As far as I know) become a drug addict.
Instead with the help of therapy and coaching on how to protect his back from hits, Montana came back and played.

It would only be remarkable if those had led to more Super Bowl wins.

You're somewhat correct in that this year's Vikings' squad is the perfect example (at least as I type this) of a really good TEAM. They have good special teams, a great kicker, great QB, good D-line (on artificial turf), decent linebackers and corners. The safeties suck, but they're not exploitable if the D-line is amassing consistent pressure on the opposing QB.

So, Favre really is a perfect fit for this team because he can carry the team during periods where it is not functioning well, and he can also relax a bit when it is. Sydney Rice is the prime example of why Favre wanted Moss in Green Bay - he needs a shoulder to lean on when the going gets tough.

Did anybody watch that game yesterday? If so, tell me who wins that game if Sydney Rice is not there for Favre, or at the very least, tell me how much more difficult Brett's life would have been yesterday without Rice. And, likewise, tell me who wins that game if Favre isn't the QB and takes the calculated risk of deep loft balls to Rice???

Again, to compare Montana to Favre is foolish - Favre is a much better player overall in nearly every facet - numbers, longevity, toughness, durability, excitement level, getting above average production outta average talent, drive, ......endless list, really. But, this is not slighting Montana as much as it is making honest assessments. The haters only argument is Super Bowl wins, which, ironically, is the result of TEAM PLAY. Why does this escape so many of you?

So a person's longevity has nothing to do with the teams he's played on, but EVERYTHING to do with ONE player? Seems like you're contradicting yourself Hausch.

Why not? You guys make a living outta contradictions.

I'm saying this: Yes, you are an IDIOT, a MORON, an IMBECILE if you actually believe ONE PLAYER wins Super Bowls for NFL teams and that in judging a player's career, using Super Bowl victories is the true measurement of success - that's ridiculous because that's like saying Trent Dilfer is as good an NFL QB as Brett Favre - they each won one SB.

Anybody that has watched NFL football even for only a few years should be able to understand that of all sports in America, NFL football is NOT a sport where an individual can be more valuable than the sum of its parts. What Brett can do is put a decent team over the hump, but he - like every QB before him - needs a supporting cast.

It's always been a team game. I agree that it's a team effort and not just one player's effort that wins SB's. If you apply that logic to regular season games, you'd find out that hey, maybe BF fans give a lot more credit to BF then the teams he played on when people say BF won the most career games of any starting QB.

SB is the ultimate goal for each team's season. Vikes fans keep saying Pack fans use the "how many SB ring you got?" argument. It's with good reason of course. It's the highest plateau a team can reach.

Hausch you are still not making your point clear. You talk about Favre's supporting cast yet you keep mentioning that Favre is the one who is connecting all the dots for that team. So basically w/o Favre they wouldn't be as far as where they are right now correct?that still proves that its not a one man show? Look after a disappointing season by us packer fans i will admit that the vikings have the better team and that they were only one player away from contending in the big game. So i think this is where you want to prove that it's a team sport. I still don't believe that Favre is the best QB in nfl history, just ONE of the best.

I can agree with that. And whatever he is the best at is just anyone's opinion.
Super Bowl wins? Not anywhere close.
Other stats? Sure. Why not.
Post season wins? In my book 13-10 is not all that impressive.
Being a flaky-waffle-headed-wishy-washy-traitor-jellyfish who can't make up his mind to quit or not and plays for a rival team? Yeah. Brent is the best at that.

Fact: If Brett Favre stings you, the best cure is urine.

The Cowboys must be peeing all over themselves right now.

Oh yes, I went there.

lol

Favre IS connecting the dots - but the dots are nearly as important because without both, the Vikings are not what they are now.

I am certain Favre is the best of all time because of his entire body of work - he's won the majority of games he's played with both great and average supporting casts AND he's been doing it for such a long period of time. Sure, 1 Super Bowl compared to 4 hurts, but that's only a fraction of the total. Manning is obviously close, but what are the odds that he'll play as long as Brett? Some guys are built like Brett and some guys appear to be built like Brett until they hit a certain age - and find their skill set has eroded. And, based on Brett's numbers this year, there's no reason to believe he cannot continue to toss 30 TD's a year into the foreseeable future because if he hasn't hit the wall by now, he may not have one.